Well you don't. All we got are models that are used to predict it's effects and they work pretty good.
I wonder what is meant when someone says 'Electricity exists'. We as a race know enough about nature
to build computers but does that imply that electricity exists?

> I stand by religion because it can be proven in a different way.

I think this site escpecially the thread "Scripture: History or Fantasy?" is evidence enough to
prove that proof is a contested word ;-) It is the goal of many to put forth proofs that god exists/
religion makes sense so it is proven and above criticism. Ironically many creationist argue
that Darwin just put forth a theory that could be wrong. A theory that can not be falsified is not
a good theory. If I say: "The word apple is red" then there is no way to falsify that claim. If
I say: "Apples are red" a single green apple will prove me wrong.

Nice to meet you officer Koo, I'm a member of the Department of Management of Departments of Randomness, and I must suspend your status in the DMDR. Please hand in your Badge to the security guard at the gate, and we'll keep you informed of the Departments on going investigation of the abuse of power case now open against you.

Nice to meet you officer Koo, I'm a member of the Department of Management of Departments of Randomness, and I must suspend your status in the DMDR. Please hand in your Badge to the security guard at the gate, and we'll keep you informed of the Departments on going investigation of the abuse of power case now open against you.

But how do you even know that it's your hand dropping the egg? Or that what you're seeing is in fact an egg at all? The formula may be consistent in the end, but the elements that precede it may not be.

You know after watching the first Matrix movie, I remember coming out the theatre with the weirdest sensation, that just maybe, it was the truth, and then really what is the truth. Oooops sorry we already have that thread??

Hence the genius of Linklater's "Waking Life." The animation so perfectly backed up the concept that one couldn't help but feel painfully aware of the ubiquitous artifice of existence, and at the same time be utterly depressed by its sheer level of mundanity.

I agree. What you've illustrated is a logical fallacy. You can't prove something is right on the grounds that it can't be proven wrong.

I refer you to your testimony on "Evidence" of the existence of God in the "Oh My God!" thread, sir.

"It cannot be proven that God does not exist, therefore one must assume that He does." Or, in your words, "not everyone sees the evidence."

It's the self-same logical fallacy. All you've done is substitute your subjectivity for an objective "certainty" -- your argument here suggests that the fallacy denotes untruth. Therefore, if your money is where your mouth is, the argument that "not everyone can see the evidence" is itself evidence that God does not exist.

Using double-negatives as "proof" or "evidence" seems like an awfully silly thing to do, though, nay?

It's only when we negate the concept of "certainty" as a binary relationship that we can argue for (or against) anything. Certainty and Uncertainty are thus the same thing -- neither paradoxical nor mutually exclusive, but a relational and combinatory continuum.

Thus, with God, neither case is true or false. For God to exist, he also must not exist. Both sides of the argument are true.